Valerie Jarret briefed the Black National Assoc of Journalists during which she recounted Obama’s successes. One of them that she claims improves the lot of black people is the reduction of the prison sentence for crack cocaine as compared to powder cocaine. None of the LSM included this part of her remarks. Shocker, I know.

A. Levy

The Dept. of Homeland Stupidity has (ordered) US Border Patrol agents to “run and hide” if they encounter an armed criminal at the border. I’m sure Butch Napilitano notified the Mexican drug cartels that they now have a safe path into the country.

Lady Liberty; time to turn around and use that torch for something useful. Yes, you were stabbed in the back by those who should have protected you. It may be fatal; it may not be fatal. One thing’s for sure; if you don’t turn around and use that torch for something useful like beating the living s___ out of your attacker, you won’t have time to regroup.

Of course Lady Liberty really isn’t surprised…those same folks have been stabbing her before.

I just LOVE this:
The Coast Guard protect oil companies from environmentalist protestors.
_________
I love it. Someone may have mentioned to members of the Coast Guard that their ships are powered by oil; the same oil that the environmentalists would disrupt.

Sooner or later will will start using the proper word for these radical environmentalists. That word is “terrorist.” Hopefully after that the words we will use will be “dead terrorists.”

Festivus

TUP, did she make special note of the unemployment rate for blacks (>13%)?

Yeah, it uses “damn” which is mild. But how many classrooms do you think might be doing projects on ObamaCare the next day? You know they will go to his campaign site. How many second graders are now going to be talking about the “damn election?”

F.D.R. in Hell

Just like the posters from World War II…
except, this time, the Axis is in Washington, DC.

If you don’t fight and win in 2012, our victory
in 1945 will have been for naught.

The mandate’s critics not only won on the Medicaid argument, they won big. The court ruled 7-2 that the Medicaid expansion, as written, was coercive since it told states they would lose existing Medicaid funds if they didn’t participate in the new program. Even Justice Elena Kagan, who seemed sharply critical of the Medicaid challenge during oral arguments, said it was unconstitutional.

As written, the Affordable Care Act would have punished states that refused to expand coverage under Medicaid by pulling all federal funding for their program.

That approach was strongly criticized in Thursday’s majority opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts.

“The financial ‘inducement’ Congress has chosen is much more than ‘relatively mild encouragement’ ” to expand Medicaid, Roberts wrote. “It is a gun to the head.”

States that still agree to expand their Medicaid rolls under the law will help to pay for the program’s growth starting in 2016. On Friday, McDonnell called this “another long-term unfunded mandate, another major budget-busting burden.”

Any votes before election day could have consequences for Democrats that support keeping obamacare. But they’ll be otherwise symbolic, if they can even get them scheduled, with Reid in charge of the Senate and blocking them at every turn, plus even if we manage to get such a vote through both houses a veto awaits it at the White House.

If you haven’t read it yet, I urge you to at least review the 6 page syllabus.

But, for the moment, I direct your attention to the section that begins at page 37.

This is where Roberts explains, in detail, why he felt bound to allow the government to argue both sides of the matter and claim the right to enact the individual mandate as a tax, even though they spent a day prior to making that argument insisting it was not a tax and indeed are still claiming, to this day, that it is not a tax.

The description of the evolution of the Court’s power makes it clear Roberts really had no choice in the matter, it seems, though we still haven’t gotten to the dissent, which, if you read it, may shape a different opinion on that question.

The fact is, as a co-equal branch of government, the Court is bound to give great deference to laws enacted by Congress and, if there is a way to view them as Constitutional, the Court must do so – it’s not a matter of choice.

In this case, and I may yet change my mind after further consideration, mind you, it does seem that Roberts’ arguments are sensible and compelling.

Do you really think he wanted to side with the liberals and uphold obamacare?

Really?

Bob Roberts

By the way, here on page 42, is something interesting.

You can get away without paying the “shared responsibility payment” without any legal problems arising, perhaps.

The IRS is barred from taking any criminal action against those who don’t pay it.

Pay your taxes as always, but refuse to pay the “shared responsibility payment” because obamacare specifically disallows the IRS from taking action to prosecute you criminally for doing so.

Bob Roberts

Perhaps the key to understanding Rogers is on page 48:

“Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchasing of health insurance, not whether it can.”

Why Roberts felt compelled to allow this interpretation (the individual mandate as a tax, even though Democrats to this day insist it is not one) was already covered previously but, to review: The Court is compelled to take all measures necessary, to interpret any law in all ways possible, to save it unless there is none that can be found and it is absolutely unconstitutional.

In this case, for reasons that may become clearer as we get to the election in November, Roberts felt compelled to allow consideration of the individual mandate required shared responsibility payment as a tax.

Now, starting on page 50, Roberts begins to beat the left senseless again. He handily disposes of their attempts to avoid taking severe damage over this blatant attempt to vastly enlarge the federal government’s power into the realm of making day to day decisions for individuals. Roberts again handily beats back such efforts. And he reveals, for those who bother to read his opinion, that this law was clearly an unconstitutional attempt to vastly expand the Federal Government’s reach, just as critics have been saying all along.

Bob Roberts

(See last: Though it was and is clearly unconstitutional in its intent and purposes, it was written cleverly enough to have an “escape hatch” even though the left still denies it and contends the law was reasonable and justified. Thus Roberts was forced to uphold it until it, hopefully, is killed in Congress.)

The largest defeat for the left begins on page 51 where Roberts begins to dismantle the coercive aspects of the Medicaid expansion.

A key part of this argument is found on page 54:

“Permitting the Federal Government to force the States to implement a federal program would threaten the political accountability key to our federal system.”

Bob Roberts

In case you missed it, on page 59 Roberts points out that obamacare was actually an attempt to enact stealth universal government health care via the Medicaid expansion. It’s down near the bottom, continuing onto page 60.

And at the bottom of page 60 continuing onto page 61 Roberts very politely but firmly calls out Ginsberg as the blatant, disgusting leftist moonbat liar she is.

Bob Roberts

The question is this: If enough states fail to accept the Medicaid expansion, will obamacare fall and will Congress be forced to invalidate it and start over?

What do you think?

Bob Roberts

Anyway, my time is up for tonight (do I hear cheering?) and as I am skipping over Ginsberg’s part (it’s all nonsense – you can read it and laugh if you want, but I refused to pollute my mind and did nothing more than skimmed it briefly and that was enough to see it was pseudo-intellectual leftist moonbat lunacy) and there are only two things to say about it:

1) Roberts already dealt with the few points Ginsberg made where she ALMOST made sense, but didn’t quite make it.

2) Her opinion is meaningless as it was the sole opinion of one apparently feeble minded and possibly senile demented justice who really needs to step down but loves the power she wields too much to do so.

When I return I will take up at the start of the more reasoned dissent of Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito as well as the additional short yet excellent single dissent by Thomas.

Could this be more proof that our Government has been overthrown by COMMUNISTS?

Aridog

@ Bob Roberts said: … … it does seem that Roberts’ arguments are sensible and compelling.

Do you really think he wanted to side with the liberals and uphold obamacare?

Really?

NO. I think Roberts simply utilized Jabberwocky to avoid critical decision makings in accord with the KISS Principle. Roberts sought only to be the hero of both sides, not the savior of either. This apparently is what our courts have devolved to now, arbiters of political correctness, not compliance with any Constitution. I find it disturbing when this court, and others, deign to write by constipated interpretation what is not written in an Act. The very contrived and lengthy “decision” illuminates what it is, a “non-decision.” All hail obfuscation! Semantic logical fallacy is the new religion. Justice Roberts is the new pastor.

I may change my mind, but I doubt it. If “Galt/Reardon 2012” were a real ticket I’d vote for it.

TrickleUpPolitics

Bob, Ginsberg is dying of pancreatic cancer and I think/hope Romney will be able to replace her with a solidly conservative justice who is young and will be there a loooong time. That’ll make it a 5-3-1 court. If we could just get rid of Stephen “living constitution” Bryer.

Aridog

@ Bob Roberts asks:

The question is this: If enough states fail to accept the Medicaid expansion, will obamacare fall and will Congress be forced to invalidate it and start over? … What do you think?

What part of “designed and intended to fail” is so hard to figure out? Of course, if a majority of states refuse Medicaid expansion, the system will break down. It is designed to do so as the perfect house of cards. So much of the PPACA is illogical & financial nonsense that it defies belief in anything.

Except that failure is the goal, in order to “save” a desperate nation, now buoyed by false & impossible promises, by imposing the “perfect” single payer federal system, unfettered by anything remotely economic. Diluted Medicare for all, cradle to grave.

Think not? Explain then how failure to acquire insurance is “taxed”, rate increasing each year, while by 2018 having “too comprehensive” insurance will also be “taxed” …at rates up to 40%? How can one have too much health insurance, since it is so important that not having it is “taxed” for non-performance. Nope, that ain’t it … it is redistribution wealth that is the goal, not provision of insurance to those who need it.

The federal bureaucracy will now define what is needed, not you. If you are successful and acquire “Cadillac insurance” by whatever means, you will soon pay a 40% premium for that privilege….presumably to make up for the near 50% of citizens who will not be paying anything. The Catch-22? The money, “taxes” from both the top end and bottom end goes to the federal General Fund, to be spent on anything the politicians and bureaucrats wish … not necessarily health care.

#Bob Roberts, …. I appreciate and value your efforts to illuminate and clarify the ruling by the SCOTUS, and Roberts’ part in particular. You further intelligent discussion and I respect that.

My criticisms are my personal opinions, not directed at you per se. I do truly believe that Roberts ducked an obvious finding … that due to no severability clause, if part of the PPACA is wrong, it should be struck down in its entirety. The would require a “do over” … same as what the actual determination seems to imply, except hat it doesn’t really.

What this Roberts’ court did was write new law, not clarify or determine diddly squat about the PPACA as written. This has become a trend in federal courts lately. “Deeming” intentions not remotely present in the Acts as passed by Congress …. such as “deeming” a penalty a tax.

Don’t even get me started on the current federal court fabricated fantasy about the Clean Air Act as signed by Nixon.

Jodie

From what I see, Justice Roberts ruled the way Obama wanted him to. Just like he did on SB1070.

This abomination is not going away soon.

Remember, no MAN will stop the anti-Christ.

Jodie

About the Statue of Liberty, it no longer carries that meaning that it once did. It was taken over by the United Nations group UNESCO in 1984 and now With Obama’s help, they are gradually turning it into a world landmark which stands for liberal causes, such as freedom of abortion, atheism, and rebellion and the suppression of Christianity.

This same evil UNESCO group has just taken over the Church of Nativity and given it to the Palestinians:

“Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, American Christian and Jewish groups and the State Department are criticizing a decision by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to place the Church of the Nativity on its list of sites of World Heritage in Danger, and to label the church as in “Palestine.” The Bethlehem site is built above the grotto where Jesus is believed to have been born and is a hugely popular tourist destination, drawing two million visitors in 2011.

The secret vote took place during UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention in St. Petersburg, Russia on Thursday. The tally was 13-6, with two abstentions.”

Roberts has been subborned by the Beltway Bandits and the inner circle Cocktail Cabal. He is officially useless as an upholder of the Constitution.

TaterSalad

Obamacare is going down and here is why:

1. The use of 51 votes during the next administration under The Reconciliation Act will bring Obamacare down. The Dems used it to bring it in and it can now be used (tax) to take it out.

or

2. This may have been Chief Justice Roberts exact intention. By holding that it is only Constitutional if levied as a tax, he has hewed to the Hamiltonian interpretation of the General Welfare clause, as stated above. In other words, the FDR/New Deal mode of government remains intact.
Except of course for the small detail that the entire argument while the measure was being passed that it was not a tax, in any way, shape, or form. And of course, it originated in the Senate and White House, not the House of Representatives.
This makes it an illegally-passed “revenue bill”, which legally cannot be collected. That is, until it goes back to the House to be rewritten and passed correctly.
What Roberts did here was say to the Administration and its cronies in the legislature, “Go back to Square One and start over. Or else.”
The “or else” being that while they have a Draconian law on the books (which is one of their big dreams and no doubt gives them a near “O” just thinking about it), they cannot enforce it as it is. Because doing so would violate other Constitutional provisions, and the U.S. Code.
The hilarious thing is that neither celebrating liberals, or conservatives who want to tar and feather Roberts, realize just what a colossal defeat this is for Obama & Co.
zero said he would never raise taxes on the middle class- and passes the largest tax increase in world history. He has been shown up for the lying, conniving, cynical con artist, narcissist, and megalomaniac he is.
And it has happened less than six months before the election.

Bob Roberts

I call your attention to the fact that the Court, led by Roberts, has clearly stated that the individual mandate is only Constitutional if it is a tax and the Democrats continue to insist it is not one.

Now are you beginning to understand why he did what he did?

LouieLouie

I have to wonder what kind of horsetrading went on between the Justices. . . .

And where is the outrage over the obvious conflicts of interest on the parts the Justices who should have recused themselves?

Bob Roberts

TaterSalad says: July 1, 2012 at 8:31 am
—————
Actually yes, that is a great point. Assuming we can get a majority of 51 in the Senate, that is.

I was not thinking in those terms.

LouieLouie

And isn’t it the function of the Supreme Court Justices to uphold the law *as written* rather than to make *interpretations* of the law based upon each Justice’s personal preferences and utopian worldview?

Bob Roberts

LouieLouie says: July 1, 2012 at 8:41 am
—————-
Yes, except for one point – you said:

“And where is the outrage over the obvious conflicts of interest on the parts the Justices who should have recused themselves?”

I wonder exactly which “Justices” you are talking about. Kagan, for certain, should have hit the showers. No sane person denies that. However, the arguments against Thomas were weak and based on falsehoods, for the fact his wife had some dealings with ‘Liberty Central’, a group that busied itself with working to defeat those who helped pass obamacare, were not sufficient to cause him to recuse himself. HER actions were not sufficient to cause HIM to recuse because HER actions were HERS, not HIS and did not indicate a bias on HIS part against this abominable act.

Compare and contrast this with the Kagan case: Kagan’s actions were direct and personal and clearly prejudiced her completely in an ongoing fashion prior to and during the deliberations.

Ginsburg, an 18-year veteran of the Supreme Court, has faced criticism in the past for not recusing herself from cases involving companies her husband, a tax attorney, has invested in.”

During her Congressional confirmation hearings, Kagan herself admitted she should recuse herself from the obamacare case:

Kagan — and the senators who questioned her at her confirmation hearings — were well aware of her need to recuse herself from cases during her first term on the court.

“I would recuse myself from any case in which I’ve been counsel of record at any stage of the proceedings, in which I’ve signed any kind of — of brief,” Kagan testified in response to a question from Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., during a confirmation hearing on June 29, 2010. “So that’s a flat rule. In addition to that, … I would recuse myself in any case in which I’d played any kind of substantial role in the process. … I think that that would include any case in which I’ve officially formally approved something. So one of the things that the solicitor general does is approve appeals or approve amicus briefs to be filed in lower courts or approve interventions.”

Bob Roberts

LouieLouie says: July 1, 2012 at 8:46 am
—————
Well, your train of thought is correct but you expressed it extremely poorly.

The idea is that if there is ANY way a Court can save a piece of legislation, they must do so, more or less. See Roberts’ opinion in this case – he explains it fully.

LouieLouie

I stand corrected. Justice, singular.

That said, the outrage?

LouieLouie

Well, that wasn’t very nice, Bob. I’m done.

Bob Roberts

TaterSalad says: July 1, 2012 at 8:31 am

“The hilarious thing is that neither celebrating liberals, or conservatives who want to tar and feather Roberts, realize just what a colossal defeat this is for Obama & Co.”

I caught that the first day… because I actually bothered to read the decision before I blurted.

zero said he would never raise taxes on the middle class- and passes the largest tax increase in world history. He has been shown up for the lying, conniving, cynical con artist, narcissist, and megalomaniac he is.
And it has happened less than six months before the election.

All true, but between the sheeple on the left and the election fraud you know the obamunists are gearing up to commit, along with all the illegal alien votes, it’s going to be a pitched battle (closely and intensely fought battle: a fierce battle fought by opposing forces who take up prearranged positions in close proximity to each other; fierce conflict or argument: a bitter conflict or confrontation).

Bob Roberts

LouieLouie says: July 1, 2012 at 9:04 am
———–
Did not mean to be rude or to chase you away. You have to understand: I blurt sometimes too. I know that my partial compliment came out like sort of a slap, perhaps, but I do think you’re correct – you just expressed yourself poorly, as I often do!

Any better?

Jodie

LouieLouie says:

July 1, 2012 at 8:41 am

“I have to wonder what kind of horsetrading went on between the Justices. . . .”

You hit the nail on the head! I’m wondering if there was some of that between Roberts and Kennedy on the SB1070 and Obamacare rulings.

Bob Roberts

Aridog says: July 1, 2012 at 5:34 am
———-
To you (& anyone else): Feel free to criticize me (well, what I say) as directly as you wish. I can take it. I understand my opinions are my own, not necessarily shared or agreed/understood by others.

I appreciate a spirited debate as long as it does not get down in the gutter, as it regularly did when we had a resident troll. And I can’t help but share the blame for some of that because, once it got there, I occasionally jumped right in. Now, with a more troll-free environment, you will note I don’t go there any more. Which is not to blame what I did on trolls – my words and actions are my own alone, not anyone else’s fault.

Bob Roberts

And I should mention (to Louie Louie and others) that you should remember that my views here are my opinions, which, at the end of the day, are no better or worse than yours.

So don’t take what I say so hard, even if I express myself poorly.

Anyway, I found this NPR NONSENSE where they predictably say that Thomas should recuse himself based on his wife’s activities. Yet within it they admit:

“…it’s important to note that Ginni’s activities are much more likely a symptom of her husband’s deep bias and antipathy towards progressive causes, not the cause of them.”

Of course, they even got that wrong – Thomas bears no “deep bias and antipathy towards progressive causes”, he merely is dedicated to DOING HIS JOB, UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION, which requires he put “progressives” and “liberals” in their place when the opportunity to do so comes around.

AC

Bob, Ginsberg is dying of pancreatic cancer and I think/hope Romney will be able to replace her with a solidly conservative justice who is young and will be there a loooong time. That’ll make it a 5-3-1 court. If we could just get rid of Stephen “living constitution” Bryer.

When has Romney done anything which is “solidly conservative”?

Bush and a RINO-infested Senate gave us Roberts. We can hope for no better the next time around, if there is a next time.

Federal politicians are strongly biased towards justices with an expansionist view of Federal power. Scalia is an anomaly.

We the people must push for constitutional amendments. Leaving the task of reining in Beltway excess to the Beltway swamp creatures is a losing strategy.

A. Levy

We should not be so quick to throw CJ Roberts under the bus. He may have done much more good for those of us on the Right than we currently understand. He has one of the most brilliant legal minds this country has ever produced. I just hope that the weak dolts in congress, (a.k.a. Republicans) know what to do with the “tools” he has just given them. And if they do, there is then only one threat we have to fear. The mindless sheep known as voters.

TrickleUpPolitics

Louie Louie says:And isn’t it the function of the Supreme Court Justices to uphold the law *as written* rather than to make *interpretations* of the law based upon each Justice’s personal preferences and utopian worldview?

No, when considering a statute the test for the Supreme Court is to try to construe the statute if there is a way to do so and uphold it, thus giving deference to the intent of Congress.

Aridog

Bob Roberts says:

I call your attention to the fact that the Court, led by Roberts, has clearly stated that the individual mandate is only Constitutional if it is a tax and the Democrats continue to insist it is not one….Now are you beginning to understand why he did what he did?

In the spirit of the “Keep It Simple, Silly” principle (KISS), what
Roberts and his cohorts did was uphold an unconstitutional act. “IF” is a meaningless tender. Ambiguously re-writing the law by interpretation tied to “IF…” clarifies nothing. It is in fact, salt rubbed in the wound.

The law stands, and will be enforced. Let’s call the penalty or tax a “fiddly tinkle winkle fee” and everything will be better … THAT is the Roberts ruling.

Now someone tell me how this painfully contrived falsely imagined intellectually contorted ruled does anything? Anything at all of substance? The PPACA was intentionally written without a sever-ability clause. Purportedly, parts of it have been “severed.” Why is the Act then not struck down? Simple … it severs nothing and remains intact.

This pseudo intellectual contrivance the Roberts court, and Roberts himself, have coughed up should have Marx dancing in joy, and Locke spinning in angst, in their graves.

We have really reached the point where we do not know what “is” … “is” …. and we all thought it was a kind of funny gambit by a guy who got fellated on the job, eh?

My view point will change if the entire PPACA is re-written in Congress, or repealed, …. and I do believe a winged pigglet just passed by my window.

Jodie

I agree with Aridog. If Justice Roberts felt it was unconstitutional, he should have ruled that way. He was the deciding vote and he ruled in FAVOR of Obamacare.

This is the same Justice Roberts who swore Obama into his presidency behind closed doors, without a Bible.

Aridog

TrickleUpPolitics says:

… when considering a statute the test for the Supreme Court is to try to construe the statute if there is a way to do so and uphold it, thus giving deference to the intent of Congress.

Agreed. Now, hinging said construction on the term “If” does what?

Doesn’t matter anyway, does it? However the ruling went, who would enforce it? Or prevent its enforcement and implementation?

Roberts ruled the only way he could and conform to the modern political Jabberwocky of governance.

AC

Too bad they blew right past the intent of the Founding Fathers in the process.

The court is rotten to the core with moonbattery. We have but one justice who tries to uphold the Constitution as it was written.

If you can’t bring yourself to vote for Romney, fine. Just don’t vote for Obama.

Aridog says: July 1, 2012 at 11:21 am

“what Roberts and his cohorts did was uphold an unconstitutional act.”
————————-

No, that’s just the point – the law was written slyly enough that there was a way to interpret it as Constitutional, unfortunately.

I’m no happier than anyone, but Roberts’ explanation of why he went the way he did is sound, I grudgingly admit.

Further, get over the anger (which I share) that this abominable act still stands and consider the larger picture.

This decision will likely have a decisive effect on the coming election. Had it gone the other way on the individual mandate it would have lit a fire in the bellies of the left that would quite likely have pushed Obama back into the lead and then what happens for the next 4 years? Now with this decision this way it is, hopefully, the right who will be energized and, if they get a 51 majority in the Senate and hold the majority in the house along with Romney elected, we may see a more Constitutional way out of this mess.

As for continued statements to the effect that (paraphrasing perhaps here) “Romney promised to repeal obamacare – he’d better deliver/he will be held to it”, We should all know that just as the Supreme Court has limits regarding striking down legislation, which Roberts felt applied here, Romney has exactly zero power to repeal obamacare. The best he can do is whip the Republicans in Congress into shape and get them to do it and, if he fails, most of the blame should go to them, not him, as HE DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO OVERTURN A LAW JUST BECAUSE HE DOES NOT LIKE IT, JUST LIKE ROBERTS AND THE SENSIBLE JUSTICES ON THE USSC.

At the moment I am accepting Roberts’ written statements in this opinion as sound and correct. Several of you are still claiming that the Individual Mandate, or more specifically the supposed “penalty” known as the “shared responsibility payment” is unconstitutional, but I don’t see you coming up with any arguments that refute Roberts’ position that he had no choice but to interpret it as a tax that the Congress may in fact impose on those who meet the criteria they’ve outlined.

Look, remember I AM ON YOUR SIDE – I DO NOT LIKE OBAMACARE OR THE OUTCOME OF THE COURT ANY MORE THAN YOU DO.

I just didn’t jump to a position and cling to it without thinking through not only what the Court said and WHY, but also the bigger political picture.

We are in a fight for our lives here. Roberts just smacked us awake and dressed us down like a good DI would. He’s issued our marching orders, now it’s up to us.

1) Can a state impose criminal penalties when illegal aliens fail to comply with federal alien registration requirements?

2) Can a state impose criminal penalties when illegal aliens seek or engage in work in that state?

3) Can a state direct their state and local officers to arrest, without a warrant, a person “the officer has probable cause to believe… has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States”?

4) Can a state direct that officers conducting a stop, detention or arrest to make efforts, in some circumstances, to verify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government?

The hated 9th Circuit Court pretty much said no in all four instances. Nothing surprising there.

The USSC ruled that, on the first three issues, the 9th Circuit Court was correct. This is based on the view that Arizona was intruding into an area that the Constitution expressly states is Federal territory.

Yeah, I don’t like it either but, grudgingly, I see where they’re going with that. The issue is that the fix is not to usurp the Constitution, but rather to but a boot in the rear of the Federal Government and force them to do their job. After all, this is only an issue because they’re not doing it.

We cannot allow unconstitutional things to happen just because there’s a need for action. We have to do it right, just as we insist the left must do it right, though they seldom if ever do.

The good news, though, is in the part where the Court addressed the fourth question.

They come right out smacking the 9th Circuit Court down, pointing out they acted in an arbitrary and capricious fashion.

Of the three issues before the Court, I think this one was the most significant and I think it was decided as a win, at least for now, for the right.

The thing to note is the Court did not slam the door shut on this issue – it merely stated that before we decide if this fourth question needs to be explored, we need to let that part of the law go into effect and see if it has the dire consequences the left is whining about.

The moonbats lost big time – this was the real meat of the AZ SB10 bill, what they most wanted to kill – or so I believe.

Yeah, I would like to see more action taken similar to issues 1-3, but at the federal level, where it needs to happen. I’ve been saying all along that we need PROPER and comprehensive immigration reform such that no dipstick President can come in with a back door illegal amnesty order.

Nomesayin?

Aridog

Bob Roberts … how about just the simple fact that Congress did not call the shared responsibility payment, or penalty, a tax?

What is the tangible precedent for a “tax” on non-performance or non-existence of something? Is this a property tax? One that you/we owe for simply existing?

They called other ACA payments, such as those on medical devices, taxes. What is the “shared responsibility” incumbent in the tax on comprehensive health plans, aka Cadillac plans, from 2018 onward?

I’d love to believe that Roberts is directing Congress to fix it. He could have said just that, but choose to act all Moses come down from the Mount.

The only benefit I see is that it hopefully will energize the right to depose Obama and his Congress.

My time as a “Fed” tells me that once institutionalized, a behavior doesn’t change. Today we have a Congress without a budget. We have a Supreme Court that parses terms rather than ruling. We have a Dept of Justice that acts only for its own benefit.

Law? Who cares … no one is left to enforce it. Or read it simply for what it says, instead “deeming” whatever scheme necessary to avoid ruling.

Aridog

After all, this is only an issue because they’re not doing it.

Dang right. Now how about a “shared responsibility payment” in the form of refundable tax credit to every tax payer until such time as they do perform? 🙂

AC

If Roberts is such a legal expert, then let him use his lawyer skills defending himself from charges of high treason.

Festivus

Not defending Roberts here, but I think what they are saying is that Congress does indeed have broad taxation powers and can, in fact, tax the air you breathe should they so wish. However, there is a built in restraint upon them from doing so (the electorate).

Bloodless Coup …damn, now you’ve gone and done it …. forced me to download the entire PPAC Act and read every line. The SCOTUS ruling was such drivel I nearly passed out while reading parts of it, and the parts of the PPACA I’ve already read had the same effect.

If the citations you are citing are correct and the interpretation is taken up by Dept of H&HS, THAT may be enough to make a future popular coup more than bloodless….downright bloody in fact. The very idea is too much 1984, too much Blade Runner, too much Soylent Green, et al. to be acceptable to most Americans … if they are still armed, that is.

Aridog

PS: My objection to Robert’s majority finding is that they have “approved” a huge body of law that covers much more than health care per se. It opens doors never previously considered moral or ethical. By letting the beast live, by literally inventing partial sever-ability out of thin air, they may have been clever but ineffective. At best they quibbled with semantics, applied logical fallacy to it, and gave it back to us unfettered to any serious degree. Like politicians and lawyers are prone to do, they totally ignore the venerable KISS principle. Words now mean what some one says they mean, not what a consensus defintiion says it means. Now there really IS variation in what “Is” is.